From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 05:45:22 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA24841; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD6C17EC8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 05:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fantasy (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fB1DcbD09068
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:38:39 -0500
Message-Id: <200112011338.fB1DcbD09068@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:38:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: List-ID-savvy clients, redux
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1007213917.qQdPoO@server02.rev.net
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I'm not entirely surprised to hear that there are some unix-based mail
clients that support that, but I suspect that's not a particularly
interesting bit of data. I wasn't asking for suggestions for *ME* to be
able to switch to a List-*:-savvy mail client, but rather in the context
of our being list managers whether the members of our lists that CAN do
that form much more than a set of measure zero.
Chuq: you administer [or at least used to] Apple mailing lists with
hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Is there a commonly used mailer in
the Apple world that handles the List-* headers?
I don't think that any of the common [or even uncommon] MUAs in the
Windows world handle it..
And so I think that we're just nowhere near the time to be able to talk
about actually *USING* those headers in any serious way for real-world
mailing lists, wouldn't you say? As was pointed out, LOTS of folk use
MUAs that can't even _filter_ on those headers, much less actually
*support* them as they were intended...
/bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lehel.goldmark.private (85.dialup.44.uia.net [66.146.44.85])
by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fB1FOG724294
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost)
by lehel.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 16ABzt-0005nG-00
for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 07:24:09 -0800
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:24:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg
X-X-Sender:
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: List Managers Mailing list
Subject: Re: List-ID-savvy clients, redux
In-Reply-To: <200112011338.fB1DcbD09068@mail.rev.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> I don't think that any of the common [or even uncommon] MUAs in the
> Windows world handle it..
PC-Pine has partial support for them.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 09:12:44 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA26748; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 09:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8486D17EC8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 09:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB1HC2E57187
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:12:03 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To:
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 12:12:05 -0500
From: Tom Neff
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID
Message-ID: <4667140.1007208725@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To: <200112010900.BAA18423@honor.greatcircle.com>
References: <200112010900.BAA18423@honor.greatcircle.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
If List-ID does become widely adopted, spamware will insert it as a matter
of routine, especially on list-harvested emails. Considering the relative
volume of spam vs. listserv traffic, the eventual result may be that the
presence of a List-ID header is a presumptive spam signature.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 11:12:46 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA27697; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46BE17EB9
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (dsl081-078-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.183])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB1J2qQ09633;
Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:02:52 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 11:02:49 -0800
Subject: Re: List-ID
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: Tom Neff ,
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <4667140.1007208725@[192.168.0.4]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Maybe. Or maybe not.
Are you suggesting we not bother with it, then, because of something that
might happen? Or what? I'm not sure where you're going here.
I personally don't see this as a problem. If spammers adopt it, the value
will still be bogus. If anything, it'll give easier options to blacklist
spam (remember when spamtools advertised themselves in headers? They
stopped...). And even if not, list-id is still a very good tool for explicit
whitelisting, by filtering on the content, not just the existance.
On 12/1/01 9:12 AM, "Tom Neff" wrote:
> If List-ID does become widely adopted, spamware will insert it as a matter
> of routine, especially on list-harvested emails. Considering the relative
> volume of spam vs. listserv traffic, the eventual result may be that the
> presence of a List-ID header is a presumptive spam signature.
>
>
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 11:58:00 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA28056; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.212])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B5B17EC8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 16AGAD-00074t-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 11:51:05 -0800
To: "Bernie Cosell"
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID-savvy clients, redux
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Cosell"
of "Sat, 01 Dec 2001 08:38:23 EST." <200112011338.fB1DcbD09068@mail.rev.net>
References: <200112011338.fB1DcbD09068@mail.rev.net>
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 11:51:05 -0800
Message-ID: <27210.1007236265@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:38:23 -0500
Bernie Cosell wrote:
> And so I think that we're just nowhere near the time to be able to
> talk about actually *USING* those headers in any serious way for
> real-world mailing lists, wouldn't you say? As was pointed out,
> LOTS of folk use MUAs that can't even _filter_ on those headers,
> much less actually *support* them as they were intended...
Even Qualcomm, who were active/significant participants in the
development of RFC 2369, don't support it in Eudora (which shouldn't
come as a surprise).
More simply on the mail filtering side for commercially developed
MUAs, there's very little reason for the to do the work. It adds
considerable UI complexity, considerable QA time/complexity,
considerable tech support and documentation overhead, and all for a
feature that less than 0.1% of their users will ever use, let alone
notice.
Now what would be interesting would be an MU which by *DEFAULT*
auto-created folders and filterd list messages into them based on
the values of RFC 2369 headers, X-Mailing-List, etc. An MUA that
attempted to do it all for you, out of the box, but then also let
you diddle it if/as needed.
And yes, this is of course trivial to do under procmail.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 13:17:57 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA28766; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:08:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD0817EB7
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB1L7uE65802
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:07:56 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To:
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 16:08:00 -0500
From: Tom Neff
To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: List-ID
Message-ID: <18821781.1007222880@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
We won't know for sure whether List-ID solves any real-world problems (or
makes any worse) until it's widely adopted. That's how it usually goes
with 'standards' that people invent because they like how they look on
paper.
In the meantime, I stand by my prediction that spamware will swiftly mimic
the header if it catches on, and will thereby become the bulk of mail
carrying it. If people want to say that's fine, then great, that's fine.
You can't argue with progress. Already you can post "me too" to a list and
generate 15K of text, HTML, extra headers, special prefixes, banners,
trailers, and MIME packing peanuts as a result. It will only get better.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 15:42:49 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA00187; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.lofcom.com (lofcom.com [216.105.35.108])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E53B17EB0
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.10] (washdc3-ar1-4-63-158-007.vz.dsl.gtei.net [4.63.158.7])
by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15130;
Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:38:00 -0500
X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com
X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <18821781.1007222880@[192.168.0.4]>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:36:53 -0500
To: Tom Neff , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Charlie Summers
Subject: Re: List-ID
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 4:08 PM -0500 12/1/01, Tom Neff is rumored to have typed:
> In the meantime, I stand by my prediction that spamware will swiftly mimic
> the header if it catches on, and will thereby become the bulk of mail
> carrying it. If people want to say that's fine, then great, that's fine.
I don't think that's what anyone is saying (although I claim to speak only
for myself, and most of the time I don't even claim that). Of _course_
spamware will replicate various header fields of real email (I almost think
that "Well, Duh!" is too mild an expression of the obviousness of that), but
simply because it does doesn't mean those header fields are a "bad thing."
Most of the spam that comes into my server now contains From:, To:, Subject:,
and even Message-ID: and Content-Type: fields...that doesn't mean those
header fields have limited purpose in legitimate email, only that they are
basterdized in spam email.
I understand the logic of your suggestion that the List-* fields will be
appropriated by spam sometime in the future, I just don't understand your
conclusion that because of it they shouldn't be used by legitimate mailing
lists. I would think your conclusion requires absolute trust in the List-ID:
field...and I don't have absolute trust in _any_ header field since they can
_all_ be forged. If you do, I guess you're bound to be dissapointed. If you
don't...where's the big problem again?
Charlie
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 15:57:49 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA00259; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF4117EB0
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (dsl081-078-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.183])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB1Nm4Q13854
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:48:04 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 15:48:01 -0800
Subject: @ home shutdowns.
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In case folks haven't heard, excite@home has started unplugging cable
systems. I've gotten reports from friends who's home connections have gone
dead.=20
Various cable systems are working at moving customers and all that. Outages
in some cases are being quoted as 5 days and longer.
What this means for list managers? Chaos. Old addresses bouncing, addresses
moved to new domains without lots of info to the customer, all sorts of
fun.=20
Thought folks should be aware that the chaos is going to be starting. Dunno
about your lists, but on my lists, @home was up to 5% of subscribers. And
while I don=B9t think the entire @home network is dead, at this point, you
ought to assume it's going to happen, if it hasn't already.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 17:57:48 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA01376; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 17:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.212])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F7517EB8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 17:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 16ALjH-0000DA-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 17:47:39 -0800
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Subject: Re: @ home shutdowns.
In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach
of "Sat, 01 Dec 2001 15:48:01 PST."
References:
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 17:47:39 -0800
Message-ID: <815.1007257659@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 15:48:01 -0800
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Thought folks should be aware that the chaos is going to be
> starting. Dunno about your lists, but on my lists, @home was up to
> 5% of subscribers. And while I donšt think the entire @home
> network is dead, at this point, you ought to assume it's going to
> happen, if it hasn't already.
I've already pre-emptively relegated all of @home to a secondary
smarthost whose only duty is handling known slow MXes (domain
routing at the MTA level). .
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 21:42:53 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA03526; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099F617EB8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB25b4E82741
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:37:05 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To:
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:37:12 -0500
From: Tom Neff
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID
Message-ID: <49374187.1007253432@[192.168.0.4]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; FORMAT=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
--On Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:36 PM -0500 Charlie Summers
wrote:
> I understand the logic of your suggestion that the List-* fields will
> be appropriated by spam sometime in the future, I just don't understand
> your conclusion that because of it they shouldn't be used by legitimate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> mailing lists.
Charlie's difficulty may stem from the fact that I haven't offered such a
conclusion in the three short posts I've submitted on this topic.
> I would think your conclusion requires absolute trust in
> the List-ID: field...and I don't have absolute trust in _any_ header
> field since they can _all_ be forged. If you do, I guess you're bound to
> be dissapointed. If you don't...where's the big problem again?
There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note parenthetically,
in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing, solves nothing,
assures nothing, and simplifies nothing, and that it will be hard to parse
meaningfully, difficult to enforce correctness syntactically, widely
subject to abuse by spammers, and confusing to most of the community it's
foisted on. However, it has a very pretty RFC, and it gives software
authors something new to implement and fight about, and the listerati a new
stick to beat mere users and working admins with, so I am 100% on board and
in favor of it.
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 22:42:57 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA04069; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 69F5917EB8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16637 invoked by uid 50); 2 Dec 2001 06:36:19 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID
References: <49374187.1007253432@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To: Tom Neff's message of "Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:37:12 -0500"
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 01 Dec 2001 22:36:19 -0800
Message-ID:
Lines: 13
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Tom Neff writes:
> There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note
> parenthetically, in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing,
> solves nothing, assures nothing, and simplifies nothing,
It's a nice thing to put into procmail rules rather than trying to figure
out what combination of Sender, X-Loop, Mailing-List, Resent-From, To, or
envelope sender seems unlikely to change at the whim of the list-admin and
the software they use.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 1 23:42:53 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA04500; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 23:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1E017EE0
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 23:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (dsl081-078-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.183])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB27SIQ21034;
Sat, 1 Dec 2001 23:28:18 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 23:28:18 -0800
Subject: Re: List-ID: (was: subscriber address in To: field)
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: Vince Sabio ,
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11/30/01 4:53 PM, "Vince Sabio" wrote:
> ** Sometime around 15:53 -0800 11/30/01, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone:
>> On 11/30/01 2:41 PM, "Vince Sabio" wrote:
>> Double-however, how much time and energy should we (as list owners, admins,
>> list server authors, etc) put into supporting non-conforming,
> I look at it as a trade space, with "user popularity" traded off
> against "difficulty of supporting" [the MUA].
There's a second question, actually, that now comes to mind. Should this
stuff be treated as core functionality (i.e., you have to find a way to
support everyone with it) or optional stuff (as, say, MIME digests are),
where if you want it, move to a mail client that supports it...
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 00:42:53 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA05161; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9CC17EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (dsl081-078-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.183])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB28cfQ22560
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:38:41 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:38:40 -0800
Subject: Re: I know this is off-topic, but...
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
(I'm trying to catch up on e-mail, so I'm going to edit heavily, and respond
to multiple people in one message. Sorry if you don't like the format, but I
thought it was better than deluging the list with nine or ten separate
replies....)
Just some accumulated responses on the "I know this is off-topic, but..."
thread, now that I'm actually catching up
Bernie Cosell:
>But, not exactly 'lazy' --- I think you're vastly underestimating the hassle
>and the entry barrier to dropping into a new, focused forum to ask a one-time
>question.
No, I don't think so. I know how tough it can be. That's why I'm tolerant of
it at all. But on the other side of things, I have to worry about and trade
off what hassles that stuff cause subscribers and the list. That's my
struggle. I don't want ot end up with mailing lists titled "stuff on the
internet", but I'm way out of my list-nazi stage of life.
Vince Sabio:
>FWIW, it is not uncommon for us to receive off-list messages of
>thanks whenever we kill an off-topic thread. It seems that the folks
>who enjoy -- or even tolerate -- such threads are well in the
>minority, though of course it varies
I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Unhappy people give feedback. Happy
people don't. fact of life. So you'll hear from folks who appreciate you
doing away with something they don't like. You'll rarely hear from folks who
say "I want off-topic stuff". Most folks don't like off-topic stuff, except
when they do, and it's that "except when they do" part that's the fun part;
good off-topic stuff is well-received, even by most folks who don't want the
list to wander. But "good" isn't easy to define...
Greg Woods:
>I definitely don't want to get into publically admonishing one of the
>list's regular and respected posters, so in that case I might publically
>let it go, and privately ask the person please not to post stuff that
>they *know* is off-topic, but if it's somebody relatively new on the
>list,
defines my policy pretty well. The more a person contributes to the list,
the more I cut them slack, even if I disgree with their decision. They've
earned it with sweat equity. And I generally try to administer in private,
except when the list in general needs a reminder or to be spanked. I've done
the "public flogging as an example to the rest of you", but these days, I
try to stay away from that most of the time. I'm uncomfortable with how it
treates the poor floggee. Sometimes, though, they've earned it. but mostly,
I try to disconnect the lesson from the person in the stocks....Excedpt when
I don't.
JC Lawrence:
>I try and build lists where the membership have the general view that
>they need to aggressively defend topicality.
And I tend more to building things where the list is more "people with this
interest" than "list on this topic". Even at Apple, with the heavy tech
stuff, I let the community aspects develop, although with a much shorter
leash. I think people who know (and mostly like) each other tend ot work
better together, and it's the side-chat that lends itself to that
getting-to-know-you part. You can't let it take over (or maybe you can, if
you're primary interest is community), but I find it useful for building
relationships inside the list community.
Janet Detter Margul:
>My list handles that by labeling those in the subject line with the
>prefix TAN:
I have mixed feelings about this. I find it works better in smaller groups
that have been together for a while. the larger the list, the harder it is
to make work. You can't (basically by definition) make it happen by
technology, and I don't have time as admin to wander through lists noodging
people to adopt it. The big problem I run into wtih it at times is when some
group decides it "has to happen", and goes into cowboy mode on everyone who
doesn't follow suit.
I've decided that if groups want to self-build standards like this, that's
great. I won't make them formal policy, though, because I don't want to get
into the meta-fights over stuff that should or shoudln't be flagged, or the
cowboy admins going off to take policy into their own hands. You can create
some nasty fights that way, and the advantages are fairly minor, so I leave
it informal and slap the cowboys before they spook the herd... (grin)
JC Dill:
>At some point the list manager started publicly (posting "to the list")
>"slapping" people with a dead fish for off-topic posts.
It wasn't the "salmon of contrition", was it? I ask because a community I
was in many years ago invented that concept, and I know it's spread to some
other communnities around the net from there. I've been known to use it to
get a point across in a non-in-your-face way at times, too. (for much the
same reason I coined the term list-mom as a non-aggressive term for admin,
the salmon of contrition is a way to remind someone to get their act
together, but with an image that is, well, hard to take seriously. so you
have a serious point and a non-serious imagery attached, and it makes a
situation a lot less confrontational. Which can be very effective if you
have people yelling at each other, and you want to break up a fight without
them all turning on you instead....)
>IME, if you let a single thread like this go unchecked (and have a lot of
>novice Internet users on your list), the threads multiply like bunnies, and
>your most clueful on-topic contributers end up silent, and then leave.
>
>How do other list managers address this problem?
I used to worry about the "if I do this, I set a precedent" problem. I've
found, though, that mostly, people don't pay attention that closely, and if
you leave a "because I'm the mother" clause in your list rules, you might
not make them happy, but you can get away with it. I try to have a good
explanation for why A was okay, but B wasn't-- and frankly, if I can't, then
maybe I'm wrong, no? but I'm a lot less worried about the precedent issue on
lists these days, since people don't seem to use that as much as I'd
worried.
Cyndi Norman:
>So what's off topic? Virus warnings,
you know what? As bad as it's gotten "out there", I finally gave up on this.
Sometimes, you need to spread the word. Bogus stuff, and all that fake
e-mail virus warning crap, I still step on hard, but if someone got infected
and wants to warn folks, even though my list is protected, once viruses
started mailing out of address books, one subscriber CAN now infect another
subscriber, without going through the list where I can control it. A really,
nasty problem. I think I want those fake e-mail virus hoaxes back,
personally. Those I can deal with...
Jeffrey Goldberg:
>I try to intervene before list members feel the need to act themselves
>(and before they unsubscribe).
that is THE key, Jeffrey. And that means knowing your list populations. And
each list is different, even if you manage them the same.
(a while back, Apple, bless them, hired me an assistant to free me up for
more development work. He now does most of the first-pass postmaster stuff
for me, as well as machine admin and other stuff. And he's learning, fast,
that the technical stuff is the easy part of mail lists... It's dealing with
people that takes the time....)
Chuq
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 02:12:54 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA07208; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from renown.cnchost.com (renown.concentric.net [207.155.248.7])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DD317EB3
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (root@localhost)
by renown.cnchost.com
id FAA02047; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:08:36 -0500 (EST)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011202015558.0a31ce88@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:01:58 -0800
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: subscriber address in To: field
In-Reply-To:
References: <2b0701c179b7$e69253d0$6401a8c0@workstation7>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12:06 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, John R Levine wrote:
>Nonetheless, I think that putting the individual recipient's address in
>the To: line is a pretty bad idea. Many PC mail programs have weak
>filtering features and can't filter on arbitrary headers, so without the
>list name in the To: header, they can't put mailing list mail in separate
>folders. I agree that looking for your own address in the To: and Cc:
>line isn't a bad spam heuristic, but if you're going to do that, you can
>put "whitelist" rules for your mailing list mail first.
Not all filtering is end-user filtering.
It's easy for an individual recipient to whitelist mailing lists, then
apply anti-spam filters, but much harder for a small ISP or business that's
trying to reduce the amount of spam they receive and have to process into
user mailboxes. You can't require every user to contact the mail server
admin to whitelist yet another mailing list so that the list email can get
thru the global domain filters.
Thus the problem with list email not containing the domain name within the
list headers.
I admin a technical mailing list where people occasionally discuss viruses
and you would be amazed at the number of subscribers who have brain-dead
filtering (filters on the *body* of the message, filters that claim a
message is a virus if it contains the name of the virus in the body of the
email, etc.) of their list subscription address, filtering happening at the
incoming MTA level. When I explain that this type of filtering is
unacceptable for this technical list, they talk about how they can't get
the mail server admin to change the rules. The only solution is for them
to go get a freebie email account and use it to subscribe to the list!
jc
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 02:27:52 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA07263; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from valiant.cnchost.com (valiant.concentric.net [207.155.252.9])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E4A17EB3
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (root@localhost)
by valiant.cnchost.com
id FAA11463; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:13:37 -0500 (EST)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011202020653.0a21b008@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:10:22 -0800
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: I know this is off-topic, but...
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12:38 AM 12/2/2001 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>Cyndi Norman:
>>So what's off topic? Virus warnings,
>
>you know what? As bad as it's gotten "out there", I finally gave up on this.
>Sometimes, you need to spread the word.
I disagree. As bad as it's gotten "out there", sending virus warnings just
makes it WORSE. People fall into a trap of "since I haven't seen any virus
warnings lately, it's safe to open all attachments" and each successive
virus outbreak IS worse because of it.
I slam people who post virus warnings, and remind all readers that if you
rely on virus warnings to tell you if any given attachment is safe or not
you WILL end up with a virus, sooner or later, and the only safe way to
avoid viruses is to learn how to identify a suspect email and stay alert,
and not let your software open (or preview) email attachments for you.
As a result, people on my (non-technical) lists (the people on the
technical lists are already not likely :-) are far less likely to get or
send viruses.
jc
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 05:57:55 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA10972; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netbank.com.br (garrincha.netbank.com.br [200.203.199.88])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913DF17EB4
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 05:55:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 3-062.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br (2-062.cwb-adsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.193.161.62])
by netbank.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 367E14680A; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:55:36 -0200 (BRDT)
Received: (from localhost user: 'riel', uid#500) by imladris.surriel.com
with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:55:10 -0200
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:55:10 -0200 (BRST)
From: Rik van Riel
X-X-Sender:
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Subject: Re: @ home shutdowns.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org
X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> In case folks haven't heard, excite@home has started unplugging cable
> systems.
> What this means for list managers?
Apart from the obvious bad things, this should also bring
a reduction in the amount of spam ;)
Excite@home doesn't seem to have done any measures against
spam in the last few months and their abuse@ address didn't
actually work.
cheers,
Rik
--
Shortwave goes a long way: irc.starchat.net #swl
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 08:27:58 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA12228; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 08:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F3717EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 08:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB2GDuE01577
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:13:56 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To:
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:13:58 -0500
From: Tom Neff
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID
Message-ID: <87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com>
References: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tom Neff writes:
>> There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note
>> parenthetically, in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing,
>> solves nothing, assures nothing, and simplifies nothing,
>
> It's a nice thing to put into procmail rules rather than trying to figure
> out what combination of Sender, X-Loop, Mailing-List, Resent-From, To, or
> envelope sender seems unlikely to change at the whim of the list-admin and
> the software they use.
Is List-ID really useful in procmail rules? First let's remember the
examples of valid List-ID's given in the RFC:
List-Id: List Header Mailing List
List-Id:
List-Id: "Lena's Personal Joke List"
List-Id: "An internal CMU List" <0Jks9449.list-id.cmu.edu>
List-Id:
[Note to reader: Quick - without cheating - does YOUR procmail rule handle
all of these?] At minimum it will be necessary to devise a carefully
crafted Procmail rule and hope that it gets promulgated around and used
correctly. Note that the RFC appears in run the third example onto a
second like like the Received: header, although the syntactical definition
doesn't appear to allow it, so some emitters will probably be misled. Also
note that the RFC says "Note that there is no disadvantage to changing the
description portion of the List-Id header."
Second, let's think about the likelihood of the header changing. Assuming
we can get people to generate one long random ID string ONCE for the list,
instead of every time (like Message-ID) which they'll probably be tempted
to do, what happens when a list changes homes? The RFC contradicts itself
by saying "the owner of a mailing list MUST NOT generate list identifiers
in any domain namespace for which they do not have authority," but later
"...the mailing list administrator SHOULD avoid changing the list
identifier even when the host serving the list changes." Which means that
when you move your list from GreatCircle to HIS.COM, you're supposed to do
what? Continue poaching on GreatCircle's namespace to which you're no
longer entitled, risking collision when some new legitimate GreatCircle
member wants to create sf-news which was your list's name? Or change the
string to some new value that breaks everyone's filters? That's assuming
you even get to choose - many list hosters will probably have rigid ID
generation schemes that will force a change when they decide (even if you
aren't moving).
Third, there's content. According the the RFC, this List-ID should apply
to all messages specific to the list. That means, for example, that I
can't use List-ID to pull off postings for an archiver, because mixed in
will be adds and drops, rosters, membership reminders, moderation
notifiers, and all manner of other dripdrap. To get anything useful done,
I'm going to have to apply heuristic context-type filters, exactly as I am
doing now.
Fourth, say hello to the pass-through problem. When one list feeds
another, the originating List-ID should survive, according to the RFC.
That presumably means that in our "authorized posters sublist" scheme
where, say, 20 committee members are on a read-write list and another 300
onlookers receive a subsidiary read-only list, the messages the onlookers
read will have a List-ID different from the list they joined. But this
only works if the sublists "know about" their parent lists, and if the
software has been modified to support such knowledge. Otherwise, says the
RFC, incoming List-IDs should be ignored, so that if "sh-chat" has as one
of its members "Gene Wolfe Announcements," those announcements will arrive
with sf-chat List-ID's. When a list moves, etc, etc, etc.
I think that List-ID is a manageable and seemingly desirable new feature
for the tiny fraction of people who are currently using it, BECAUSE only a
tiny fraction use it. When and if it becomes widespread, it will rocket to
the top of the "troubleshooting" forums for users. managers and developers
alike. But this is definitely not a problem!! Just an idle observation.
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 11:13:01 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA13711; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9205717EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 17878 invoked by uid 50); 2 Dec 2001 18:58:33 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List-ID
References: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com>
<87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To: Tom Neff's message of "Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:13:58 -0500"
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 02 Dec 2001 10:58:33 -0800
Message-ID:
Lines: 83
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Tom Neff writes:
> Is List-ID really useful in procmail rules? First let's remember the
> examples of valid List-ID's given in the RFC:
Gnus mail splitting rules handle all of those fine. I don't know about
procmail itself; I consider its syntax to be too baroque to be usable.
But surely such a widely-used filtering mechanism has something in place
to handle folded headers.
> Second, let's think about the likelihood of the header changing.
> Assuming we can get people to generate one long random ID string ONCE
> for the list, instead of every time (like Message-ID) which they'll
> probably be tempted to do,
Um.
I have a hard time imagining the sheer brain death that would be required
to think that randomly generating a new List-ID for every message was a
good idea. I have never seen this happen, and I'm on many mailing lists
that use List-ID. What on earth makes you think that someone would even
contemplate doing this? It would require support in the mailing list
manager; what idiot is going to implement it that way?
> what happens when a list changes homes?
List-ID doesn't really live up to promises here; it's quite likely that
when lists change homes, the List-ID will change.
However, so does every single other header on which one can split.
So while it doesn't solve that problem really, that hardly prevents it
from being useful for the reasons I spelled out in the original message.
In my experience (and I'm on a *lot* of mailing lists and split them all
out into separate nnml groups), changes to other headers like Sender or
X-Loop are routine, happen all the time, generally happen without notice,
and happen without any change in the hosting of the list that would spark
a change in List-ID. They change because someone rewired the majordomo
configuration to use list-owner instead of owner-list, because the list
admin switched from Smartlist to Mailman, because sendmail started
rewriting the Sender header, or for some other fragile internal reason.
> Third, there's content. According the the RFC, this List-ID should
> apply to all messages specific to the list. That means, for example,
> that I can't use List-ID to pull off postings for an archiver, because
> mixed in will be adds and drops, rosters, membership reminders,
> moderation notifiers, and all manner of other dripdrap. To get anything
> useful done, I'm going to have to apply heuristic context-type filters,
> exactly as I am doing now.
On the other hand, this makes List-ID *more* useful to me, so this will
vary depending on your application. I expect that the number of people
who just want a list split out into a separate folder greatly exceeds the
number of people who are trying to automatically archive a foreign mailing
list.
> Fourth, say hello to the pass-through problem. When one list feeds
> another, the originating List-ID should survive, according to the
> RFC. That presumably means that in our "authorized posters sublist"
> scheme where, say, 20 committee members are on a read-write list and
> another 300 onlookers receive a subsidiary read-only list, the messages
> the onlookers read will have a List-ID different from the list they
> joined. But this only works if the sublists "know about" their parent
> lists, and if the software has been modified to support such knowledge.
That's an interesting way of setting up posting restrictions. A good
mailing list manager should provide a lot of better ways of dealing with
that, since whether or not someone can post is really a per-user
attribute, not a property of a mailing list.
Regardless, it's a very good idea for other reasons to require mailing
lists that are operating as sublists to know that they're operating as
sublists, if for no other reason than otherwise rejecting all traffic that
seems to have gone through another mailing list is often a good idea to
avoid cross-subscription attacks. (Still pretty hard to do this unless
you run ezmlm for all affected mailing lists, since there is no
standardized way of detecting mailing list traffic... but perhaps List-ID
will become that mechanism, and if it's used primarily for *rejection*,
then spammers definitely won't start including List-ID in everything they
write.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 12:43:00 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA14538; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3791017EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB2Kd4522454
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:39:04 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <008e01c17b71$16060a20$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To:
References: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com><87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]>
Subject: Re: List-ID
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:33:07 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Russ Allbery wrote,
| I don't know about procmail itself ...
| But surely such a widely-used filtering mechanism has something in place
| to handle folded headers.
Procmail's internal egrep-substitute treats an indented line in the head
(but not in the body) as extensions of the line before it; the newline is
converted internally to a space. So a folded List-ID: header line is not an
issue.
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 13:12:57 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14806; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC3C17EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB2L7X523288
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:07:33 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <009801c17b75$0f2a3920$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To:
References: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com> <87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]>
Subject: Re: List-ID
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:01:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Tom Neff wrote,
| Fourth, say hello to the pass-through problem. When one list feeds
| another, the originating List-ID should survive, according to the RFC.
I haven't seen the RFC, but I saw some drafts and had some correspondence
with the proposers. The language like that in the drafts meant that a
downstream list that exists solely as an exploder and originates no content
of its own should leave List-ID unchanged. When the downstream list carries
the entire content of the upstream list but also originates content of its
own that is not distributed to people who belong only to the upstream list,
it wasn't so cut-and-dried. Certainly the material originating in the
downstream list should have a different List-ID from that on posts coming
out of the upstream list; whether the downstream list should change the
List-ID on articles from the upstream list as it propagates them (or add its
own while leaving the original present as well) was not clear and perhaps
dependent on details of the situation. If the downstream list carries
selected content from the upstream list (even if it adds none of its own),
that's yet another case. If the RFC made it seem simple and set in stone,
then that's a change from the drafts.
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 16:43:00 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA17055; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC4C17EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (dsl081-078-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.183])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB30fgQ09138
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:41:43 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:41:40 -0800
Subject: List-ID (minor giggle)
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Got my first piece of spam with a bogus list-ID today. All it did was cause
me to filter it to my lists folder, but given tom's comments, I figured I'd
mention it.
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 16:57:58 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA17125; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:47:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AE617EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool0514.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.194.4] helo=ee-nt.climber.org)
by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 16AhGs-0006Ra-00; Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:47:46 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:43:20 -0800
To: Chuq Von Rospach
From: SRE
Subject: Re: @ home shutdowns.
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 03:48 PM 12/1/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>I donšt think the entire @home network is dead, at this point, you
>ought to assume it's going to happen, if it hasn't already.
All dead. No @home.com addresses are still working, and those
people have trapped mail on the servers that they cannot receive.
I'm one of those people. AT&T will be replacing the old addresses
with a new domain in the next couple of weeks. Earthlink will give
you 30 free days if you ask nicely... and a $30 credit to any
earthlink or mindspring account you say referred you. This is a
good time to convince people they should be receiving email
through a forwarding alias that doesn't die when they switch
service providers!
SRE
mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/
Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org
It may be that your whole purpose in life
is simply to serve as a warning to others.
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 18:28:01 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA18039; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [216.15.66.33])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C2317EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.9.0/8.6.10) with ESMTP id SAA10793; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:18:33 +0800 (CST)
From: James Lick
To: SRE
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Subject: Re: @ home shutdowns.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
SRE,
=09According to news reports, only AT&T @Home customers have been
turned off. Cox, Comcast, and other @Home customers are still up and
running.
Jim
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, SRE wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 12/1/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> >I don=B9t think the entire @home network is dead, at this point, you
> >ought to assume it's going to happen, if it hasn't already.
>=20
> All dead. No @home.com addresses are still working, and those
> people have trapped mail on the servers that they cannot receive.
> I'm one of those people. AT&T will be replacing the old addresses
> with a new domain in the next couple of weeks. Earthlink will give
> you 30 free days if you ask nicely... and a $30 credit to any
> earthlink or mindspring account you say referred you. This is a
> good time to convince people they should be receiving email
> through a forwarding alias that doesn't die when they switch
> service providers!
>=20
> SRE
>=20
> mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/
> Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org
>=20
> It may be that your whole purpose in life
> is simply to serve as a warning to others.
>=20
>=20
---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com ---- http://drivel.com/ ----
From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 2 22:28:20 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA20388; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD2817EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool0636.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.194.126] helo=ee-nt.climber.org)
by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 16AmQN-0005QC-00; Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:17:57 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202220058.00b3b400@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:06:39 -0800
To: James Lick
From: SRE
Subject: Re: @ home shutdowns.
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
In-Reply-To:
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 06:18 PM 12/2/01, James Lick wrote:
> According to news reports, only AT&T @Home customers have been
>turned off. Cox, Comcast, and other @Home customers are still up and
>running.
The news may be wrong. I've traded email with a guy in
St Louis (Charter Cable) who still had service yesterday,
but it's now stopped working. He also has an alternate
ISP... and invited me to send him something to prove his
old address still worked. His old home.com address produced
this bounce message as of this afternoon, but I think he's
actually got cable service (just with a new domain name):
From: Mail Administrator
Reply-To: Mail Administrator
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:42:51 -0800
Message-ID: <20011202214251.UTKQ10073.femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com@femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;
Boundary="===========================_ _= 9334106(10073)1007329371"
X-UIDL: %,c"!\8d"!Wp`"!C+2"!
This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
The user(s) account is disabled.
Please reply to Postmaster@mail.alton1.il.home.com
if you feel this message to be in error.
Reporting-MTA: dns; femail8.home.com
Arrival-Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:42:51 -0800
Received-From-MTA: dns; mh3-sfba.mail.home.com (24.0.95.134)
Final-Recipient: RFC822;
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.1
Received: from mh3-sfba.mail.home.com ([24.0.95.134])
by femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP
id <20011202214251.UTKM10073.femail8.sdc1.sfba.home.com@mh3-sfba.mail.home.com>
for ;
Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:42:51 -0800
Received: from mx3-sfba.mail.home.com (mx3-sfba.mail.home.com [24.0.95.138])
by mh3-sfba.mail.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA01890
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22])
by mx3-sfba.mail.home.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB2Lgoi11258
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:42:51 -0800 (PST)
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 00:28:12 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA21495; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:13:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.vjs.org (achilles.vjs.org [162.33.212.173])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C5417EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [63.49.240.144] (162.33.212.171) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP
(Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:04:32 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:13:00 -1000
To: Chuq Von Rospach ,
"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
From: Vince Sabio
Subject: Re: I know this is off-topic, but...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
** Sometime around 00:38 -0800 12/02/01, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone:
>Vince Sabio:
>
> >FWIW, it is not uncommon for us to receive off-list messages of
> >thanks whenever we kill an off-topic thread. It seems that the folks
> >who enjoy -- or even tolerate -- such threads are well in the
> >minority, though of course it varies
>
>I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Unhappy people give feedback. Happy
>people don't. fact of life. So you'll hear from folks who appreciate you
>doing away with something they don't like. You'll rarely hear from folks who
>say "I want off-topic stuff".
I disagree, Chuq -- if people don't like the fact that an off-topic
thread was killed, well, then they are, by your definition, "unhappy"
and thus would be disposed to contact us. Correct? Probably ... we
*do* often receive complaints on terminated threads -- though
typically from those who were participating in the subject threads,
themselves.
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 03:28:03 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA26379; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tarsus.cisto.com (unknown [195.97.240.29])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C17117EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.local (pop-be-1-1-dialup-180.freesurf.ch [194.230.160.180])
by tarsus.cisto.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA00696
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:28:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.local (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id fB3A1vg02181;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:01:57 +0100
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:01:57 +0100
Message-Id: <200112031001.fB3A1vg02181@quill.local>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: (message from Russ Allbery
on 01 Dec 2001 22:36:19 -0800)
Subject: Re: List-ID
References: <49374187.1007253432@[192.168.0.4]>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tom Neff writes:
>
> > There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note
> > parenthetically, in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing,
> > solves nothing, assures nothing, and simplifies nothing,
>
> It's a nice thing to put into procmail rules rather than trying to figure
> out what combination of Sender, X-Loop, Mailing-List, Resent-From, To, or
> envelope sender seems unlikely to change at the whim of the list-admin and
> the software they use.
I agree with Russ. In addition I note that even if a list is
moved to a different mailing list software on a different
server, it'll typically be possible to keep the List-ID header
unchanged even if everything else changes.
Greetings, Norbert.
--
A member of FreeDevelopers and the DotGNU Steering Committee: dotgnu.org
Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 http://thinkcoach.com
Your own domain with all your Mailman lists: $15/month http://cisto.com
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 03:43:03 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA26384; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tarsus.cisto.com (unknown [195.97.240.29])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C49217EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.local (pop-be-1-1-dialup-180.freesurf.ch [194.230.160.180])
by tarsus.cisto.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA00708
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
by quill.local (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id fB3AsiG02278;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:54:44 +0100
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:54:44 +0100
Message-Id: <200112031054.fB3AsiG02278@quill.local>
From: Norbert Bollow
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: <87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]> (message from Tom Neff on
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:13:58 -0500)
Subject: Re: List-ID
References: <200112020900.BAA05451@honor.greatcircle.com> <87581031.1007291638@[192.168.0.4]>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Tom Neff wrote:
> Is List-ID really useful in procmail rules? First let's remember the
> examples of valid List-ID's given in the RFC:
>
> List-Id: List Header Mailing List
> List-Id:
> List-Id: "Lena's Personal Joke List"
>
> List-Id: "An internal CMU List" <0Jks9449.list-id.cmu.edu>
> List-Id:
>
> [Note to reader: Quick - without cheating - does YOUR procmail rule handle
> all of these?]
If procmail can't handle all of these with a simple rule, then
that's a usability problem of procmail, which should be fixed
in one of the next versions of procmail.
> The RFC contradicts itself by saying "the owner of a mailing
> list MUST NOT generate list identifiers in any domain
> namespace for which they do not have authority," but later
> "...the mailing list administrator SHOULD avoid changing the
> list identifier even when the host serving the list changes."
> Which means that when you move your list from GreatCircle to
> HIS.COM, you're supposed to do what?
Contact GreatCircle and ask for permission to continue using the
old list identifier even though the list is no longer hosted at
GreatCircle. When GreatCircle says "yes", this effectively
transfers to you authority over the { }
namespace.
> Continue poaching on GreatCircle's namespace to which you're no
> longer entitled, risking collision when some new legitimate GreatCircle
> member wants to create sf-news which was your list's name?
They can create a new list named sf-news, but they MUST NOT
use sf-news.greatcircle.com as ListID unless GreatCircle first
contacts you to revoke your authority over the
{ } namespace. If you want to prevent
the possibility of that happening in an unpleasant way, make a
contract with GreatCircle.
> That's assuming you even get to choose - many list hosters
> will probably have rigid ID generation schemes that will force
> a change when they decide (even if you aren't moving).
That problem will solve itself, over time. If my competitors
can't be bothered to get the ListID: header right, that will
just make it easier for me to convince their customers to move
to my list-hosting service, until all surviving list-hosting
services understand that in order to be competitive, one had
better get the headers right.
> Third, there's content. According the the RFC, this List-ID should apply
> to all messages specific to the list. That means, for example, that I
> can't use List-ID to pull off postings for an archiver, because mixed in
> will be adds and drops, rosters, membership reminders, moderation
> notifiers, and all manner of other dripdrap. To get anything useful done,
> I'm going to have to apply heuristic context-type filters, exactly as I am
> doing now.
ListID: doesn't single-handedly solve all problems, but it'll be
a useful thing to add into your heuristic algorithm in some way,
especially if you have multiple lists with similar subject matter.
> Fourth, say hello to the pass-through problem. When one list feeds
> another, the originating List-ID should survive, according to the RFC.
Yes. The subscriber is effectively subscribed to the feeding
list, although indirectly.
However if the feeding list is only an internal mechanism for
preparing some of the messages for the publicly-accessible list,
something that your subscribers don't want to know about, then
you should make sure that the List-ID: headers of the feeding
list don't leak out.
> When and if it becomes widespread, it will rocket to the top
> of the "troubleshooting" forums for users. managers and
> developers alike.
No. It can't possibly make mail filtering more complicated or
error-prone than it is without the List-ID: header.
Greetings, Norbert.
--
A member of FreeDevelopers and the DotGNU Steering Committee: dotgnu.org
Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 http://thinkcoach.com
Your own domain with all your Mailman lists: $15/month http://cisto.com
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 06:58:04 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA28332; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1266217EC7
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB3Eqh521572
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:52:44 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <008a01c17c0a$25190b40$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:47:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Chuq wrote,
: Got my first piece of spam with a bogus list-ID today. All it did was
: cause me to filter it to my lists folder, but given Tom's comments, I
: figured I'd mention it.
Of course, the idea is not to give a pass to every message with a List-ID:
header, only to those with the IDs of lists to which the recipient belongs.
SRE wrote about losing one's ISP address,
| This is a
| good time to convince people they should be receiving email
| through a forwarding alias that doesn't die when they switch
| service providers!
That's not a guaranteed permanent address either. The forwarding site can
go out of business or institute policies that make you want to dissociate
from them. At least, though, if it goes out of business, another usually
acquires the accounts and the domain name, so the address doesn't shut down
on you suddenly or hold your mail hostage.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 08:28:26 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA29300; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F09917EC7
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool0242.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.242] helo=ee-nt.climber.org)
by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 16AvoR-0006sp-00; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:19:23 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011203081526.00b24540@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:20:14 -0800
To: "David W. Tamkin"
From: SRE
Subject: forwarding and domain hosting (was Re: bogus list ID and
forwarding shutdowns.)
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
In-Reply-To: <008a01c17c0a$25190b40$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadba
nd.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 06:47 AM 12/3/01, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>That's not a guaranteed permanent address either. The forwarding site can
>go out of business or institute policies that make you want to dissociate
True, which is why I registered my own domain. Now I have a
permanent address that survives BOTH connectivity ISP and
hosting ISP changes. The deal I have now allows me to set up
as many aliases as I want, and to administer them without
contacting my host... in addition to running a couple dozen
email lists and a 200MB website.
I have a relative with simpler needs than mine, looking for
a good place to host 20MB of web pages and half a dozen
email forwarding addresses for a domain he just registered.
Any suggestions? Cheap is good. He'd use the webspace with
his mindspring account, except he doesn't want people to
bookmark pages outside his registered domain.
SRE
mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/
Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org
"The ultimate measure of a man is
not where he stands in moments of comfort
but where he stands at times of challenge and discovery."
--Martin Luther King Jr.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 08:43:05 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA29513; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3260217EC7
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [64.81.78.185] (dsl081-078-185.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.185])
by plaidworks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB3Gb6Q24017;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:37:06 -0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:37:02 -0800
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "David W. Tamkin" ,
"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <008a01c17c0a$25190b40$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12/3/01 6:47 AM, "David W. Tamkin" wrote:
> Of course, the idea is not to give a pass to every message with a List-ID:
> header, only to those with the IDs of lists to which the recipient belongs.
Depends on what you're trying to do. I'm not spamblocking, merely using
procmail to filter mailing lists into a separate IMAP folder on the server
side, so there's no need (or interest) in writing one rule for each list
here.
> SRE wrote about losing one's ISP address,
>
> | This is a
> | good time to convince people they should be receiving email
> | through a forwarding alias that doesn't die when they switch
> | service providers!
>
> That's not a guaranteed permanent address either. The forwarding site can
> go out of business or institute policies that make you want to dissociate
> from them.
Like usa.net? Like iname? Like mail.com? Like...
Right now, I'm seeing a huge migration off of hotmail. Of 60,000
unsubscribes on one of my lists last month (well above average), 10,000 were
hotmail (way out of proportion to it's percentage size of subscriber base).
Remember that recently hotmail 'fixed security' by severely limiting (read
cutting access to) many email clients that used to be able to talk directly
to it, forcing people to use the web interface (or microsoft mail clients.
Ahem). End result: lots of folks are running for the hills away from
hotmail. I'm going to be going back and checking my other logs to make sure
it's prevalent on my other sites, too, just to be sure, but I already know
the answer.
And if you think about it -- hotmail is a big service. A big, free service.
Free services cost money. So if you want to cut costs, how about, oh, a
"security update" that limits access so that people leave in disgust and go
elsewhere?
I'm waiting for the shoe to drop over at yahoo.com, too. You have to believe
it's coming. You have to believe the "free" email account is going to be
gone, or in very limited supply down the road, or more likely you'll see
services move to a two-tier setup -- very limited features for the free
account to get you in, and a paid upgrade to more capabilities.
(the hotmail thing caught me completely by surprise. I really have to write
some reports that warn me about there things. I found it while going off to
see what the home.com implosion was going to do to us, and I'm still getting
my hands around the implications of the hotmail implosion...)
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 11:28:08 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01262; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:21:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95B817EC6
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB3JLX505206
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:21:33 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <00f001c17c2f$afef7ea0$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20011203081526.00b24540@pop.climber.org>
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:20:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
When I said about forwarding services,
> That's not a guaranteed permanent address either. The forwarding site can
> go out of business or institute policies that make you want to dissociate
SRE rejoined,
| True, which is why I registered my own domain. Now I have a
| permanent address that survives BOTH connectivity ISP and
| hosting ISP changes.
Ah, but then you have to pay for registration and for hosting, and if your
host goes down or out of business you're out of luck (and your mail will
bounce) until you have arrangements with a new host and the DNS servers get
the word. And let's not even get into what happens if your registrar messes
up the records or claims not to have received your payment. For a person
without a web site (or with one that doesn't need an identifiable business
name), using a free or inexpensive forwarding service incurs less cost and
headache than having one's own domain.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 11:43:23 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01405; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sitehost4u.com (sitehost4u.com [209.239.32.15])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B6017EC6
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:39:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from juda.com (pool-138-89-99-160.mad.east.verizon.net [138.89.99.160])
by sitehost4u.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fB3Jd6B04000;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:39:06 -0500
Message-ID: <3C0BD4D9.88734F86@juda.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:39:05 -0500
From: Burt Juda
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "David W. Tamkin"
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org> <008a01c17c0a$25190b40$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Owning your own domain seems to be the only *permanent* solution.
My hosting service allows me POP mailboxes, lists and unlimited aliases. I
also have 100mb for a WebSite and a SHELL account.
- Burt
"David W. Tamkin" wrote:
> SRE wrote about losing one's ISP address,
>
> | This is a
> | good time to convince people they should be receiving email
> | through a forwarding alias that doesn't die when they switch
> | service providers!
>
> That's not a guaranteed permanent address either. The forwarding site can
> go out of business or institute policies that make you want to dissociate
> from them. At least, though, if it goes out of business, another usually
> acquires the accounts and the domain name, so the address doesn't shut down
> on you suddenly or hold your mail hostage.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 11:58:10 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01257; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D63517EC6
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB3JKM505156
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:20:22 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <00e801c17c2f$85ff6920$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
References:
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:12:35 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
When I wrote,
: Of course, the idea is not to give a pass to every message with a List-ID:
: header, only to those with the IDs of lists to which the recipient
: belongs.
Chuq responded,
| Depends on what you're trying to do. I'm not spamblocking, merely using
| procmail to filter mailing lists into a separate IMAP folder on the server
| side, so there's no need (or interest) in writing one rule for each list
| here.
Either way, you still want to use the folders only for messages whose
List-IDs are those of lists you've joined. How you treat other List-ID:
values is a separate issue. If you have just joined a list you don't know
what its List-ID is until you receive a post or a digest from it, so clearly
autodeleting all mail with unrecognized List-IDs or sending back a "you
filthy spammer" autoresponse would not be the best ideas. (I trust that
everyone on this list knows better than to send "you filthy spammer"
autoresponses, given the unreliability of return, reply, and origin
addresses on spam and the risk of false positives in any software's attempts
to identify spam.) Messages with malformed List-IDs, though, might be
another story, or since List-IDs are not supposed to change, when you don't
have any new subscriptions pending you might safely trash mail with an
unrecognized List-ID.
| I'm waiting for the shoe to drop over at yahoo.com, too. ...
| ... You have to believe the "free" email account is going to be
| gone, or in very limited supply down the road, or more likely you'll see
| services move to a two-tier setup -- very limited features for the free
| account to get you in, and a paid upgrade to more capabilities.
Yahoo has long offered a paid service with extra email storage space and
other benefits (which I don't remember). Also, to get your incoming mail
forwarded elsewhere or to get POP3 and SMTP access, you need to accept some
advertising in your email (the Yahoo! Delivers dispatches, which come once
or twice a month), which is itself a form of payment.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 12:44:42 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01984; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEFF17EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB3KP9b14548;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:25:09 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 12:25:17 -0800
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "David W. Tamkin" ,
"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <00f001c17c2f$afef7ea0$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12/3/01 11:20 AM, "David W. Tamkin" wrote:
> > Ah, but then you have to pay for registration and for hosting, and if your
> host goes down or out of business you're out of luck (and...
And you might walk outside and get hit by lightning, so we might as well not
bother and stay inside and hide?
C'mon, David, you sound like one of those "guarantee me nothing will ever
happen" whiners, and I KNOW that's not you.
Yes, stuff can happen. But we've had IP into our house, and run our own
domains, since 1994-95, and can count the total number of "down" days on two
hands. Maybe two hands and a foot (and most of that was when the building
next to our ISPs POP caught fire, and the power surges blew out equipment).
Yes, stuff can happen, but even if you do nothing and hide in your house,
stuff can still happen.
It's all about knowing what you're getting into and managing your risks.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 12:59:30 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA02072; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3AAF17EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:36:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fantasy (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253])
by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fB3KaRg19258
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:36:27 -0500
Message-Id: <200112032036.fB3KaRg19258@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:36:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Problems at bellsouth?
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (server02.rev.net)
X-Archived: msg.1007411787.ykQ4vc@server02.rev.net
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Are any of you seeing server-misconfig problems at Bellsouth, or is it
just some kind of wierd DNS problem at my end?
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx03.mail.bellsouth.net.:
>>> RCPT To:
<<< 550 .net 022: Your current IP address is not allowed to relay to
bellsouth.net Solution: Connect using BellSouth Internet Service.
whereas on my system, all of the mx##.mail.bellsouth.net servers are
listed as the MX handlers for bellsouth.net And as you see, I can't even
email 'postmaster' from here... It has been going on this way all day
for me, and it is hard for me to believe that a fairly major ISP could
have their email just plain broken for that long, so I'm assuming it is
something at my end, but I'm not sure what...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (root@localhost)
by renown.cnchost.com
id RAA09514; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:04:24 -0500 (EST)
[ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14]
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011203135654.03d3d978@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:00:21 -0800
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
In-Reply-To: <00f001c17c2f$afef7ea0$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadba
nd.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011202164039.02711360@pop.climber.org>
<5.1.0.14.0.20011203081526.00b24540@pop.climber.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 01:20 PM 12/3/2001 -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>Ah, but then you have to pay for registration and for hosting, and if your
>host goes down or out of business you're out of luck (and your mail will
>bounce)
It will?
I use a 3rd party DNS provider, and have a backup MX that's on a different
network from the primary MX that is provided along with my domain name web
hosting. So, unless my 3rd party DNS provider goes belly up (not likely),
I'm safe from any single failure taking down my email.
>And let's not even get into what happens if your registrar messes
>up the records or claims not to have received your payment.
If you use Net$ol, you deserve what you get.
> For a person
>without a web site (or with one that doesn't need an identifiable business
>name), using a free or inexpensive forwarding service incurs less cost and
>headache than having one's own domain.
And provides a less professional appearance, and incurs more risk.
To each his/her own.
jc
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 15:13:21 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA03969; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.lofcom.com (lofcom.com [216.105.35.108])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8753D17EC7
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.10] (washdc3-ar1-4-63-158-007.vz.dsl.gtei.net [4.63.158.7])
by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18177;
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:02:34 -0500
X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com
X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <200112032036.fB3KaRg19258@mail.rev.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:50:25 -0500
To: "Bernie Cosell" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Charlie Summers
Subject: Re:Problems at bellsouth?
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 3:36 PM -0500 12/3/01, Bernie Cosell is rumored to have typed:
> Are any of you seeing server-misconfig problems at Bellsouth, or is it
> just some kind of wierd DNS problem at my end?
Nope, it's not you, they have their config screwed up. I'm figuring once
they notice their inbound mail has dropped to 0, they'll figure it out... ;)
Charlie
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 15:28:08 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA04155; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:14:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE4217EB8
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB3NEM521751
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:14:22 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <012f01c17c50$343b1640$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
References:
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:07:11 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Chuq responded,
| And you might walk outside and get hit by lightning, so we might as well
not
| bother and stay inside and hide?
|
| C'mon, David, you sound like one of those "guarantee me nothing will ever
| happen" whiners, and I KNOW that's not you.
Of course it isn't. My point is that each approach has its pluses and
minuses, none of them is an undisputed winner that is best for everyone
(much less perfect), the decision is not a no-brainer, and that, as you said
yourself,
| It's all about knowing what you're getting into and managing your risks.
Bingo.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 19:43:12 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA07084; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880F517ECD
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id VAA10372; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:32:21 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <200112040332.VAA10372@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:33:46 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Cc: "Burt Juda"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12/3/01 1:39 PM, Burt Juda wrote...
>Owning your own domain seems to be the only *permanent* solution.
Technically domains aren't owned, they are leased. A registrar could
terminate your lease at any time, and you're screwed.
lull.org is mine, and I cringe every time someone talks about giving ORG
namespace to non-profit organizations. Probably won't ever happen, but
there are people who are seriously in favor of it.
I just obtained an *.il.us domain, and I'm afraid to use it as .us just
got handed over to the company that handles .biz for their mutilation.
It's unclear to me if they plan to leave the existing domains alone.
(I don't know if this message will even make it to the list. My message
of 11/30 did not.)
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 22:28:17 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA08865; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:20:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.212])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4018B17EB0
for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1]
by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 16B8yN-0004l1-00; Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:22:31 -0800
To: Adam Bailey
Cc: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" ,
"Burt Juda"
Subject: Re: bogus list ID and forwarding shutdowns.
In-Reply-To: Message from Adam Bailey
of "Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:33:46 CST." <200112040332.VAA10372@mail.xnet.com>
References: <200112040332.VAA10372@mail.xnet.com>
X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9
YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\
X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff
X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:22:31 -0800
Message-ID: <18290.1007446951@kanga.nu>
From: J C Lawrence
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:33:46 -0600
Adam Bailey wrote:
> Technically domains aren't owned, they are leased. A registrar
> could terminate your lease at any time, and you're screwed.
Quite. There are many reasons I like the ISO country TLDs. The
situation is not definitionally better, but the probabilities are.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 3 23:42:53 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA10445; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id C97FD17ECC; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from okra03.millsaps.edu (okra03.millsaps.edu [151.160.8.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4C217EB8
for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dora (151.160.200.5) by okra03.millsaps.edu (MX V5.1-AX VnDf)
with ESMTP for ;
Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:19:41 -0600
From: "Larry Olin Horn"
Organization: LOHnet
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:19:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: List-ID: (was: subscriber address in To: field)
Reply-To: Larry Olin Horn
Message-ID: <3C0A70BA.28829.A713A5B@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <200112010006.fB106FD03414@mail.rev.net>
References:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> [and indeed, I do for several lists I'm on] but I haven't seen a mail
> agent that has a 'followup' button [or even fancier, and "unsubscribe me"
> button that automatically uses the List-unsubscribe: stuff...]
Pegasus Mail (Windows) has for quite some time supported the List-
Subscribe, List-Unsubscribe, and List-Help headers. Click on the
"subscription options" item (conveniently located at the top of the
message) and a dialog pops up with buttons for sub/unsub/help.
I use its regex filtering on List-Id to move list messages to folders.
'Reply' supports several options (unfortunately not configurable per list)
which you can set as default or have it remember your most recent choice.
loh
From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 4 00:01:22 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA10385; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id E471817ECD; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C135E17EB8
for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB25aBE82648;
Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:36:11 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:36:19 -0500
From: Tom Neff
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Cc: Charlie Summers
Subject: Re: List-ID
Message-ID: <49320250.1007253379@[192.168.0.4]>
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
--On Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:36 PM -0500 Charlie Summers
wrote:
> I understand the logic of your suggestion that the List-* fields will
> be appropriated by spam sometime in the future, I just don't understand
> your conclusion that because of it they shouldn't be used by legitimate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> mailing lists.
Charlie's difficulty may stem from the fact that I haven't offered such a
conclusion in the three short posts I've submitted on this topic.
> I would think your conclusion requires absolute trust in
> the List-ID: field...and I don't have absolute trust in _any_ header
> field since they can _all_ be forged. If you do, I guess you're bound to
> be dissapointed. If you don't...where's the big problem again?
There is no big problem, that's for sure. I merely note parenthetically,
in passing so to speak, that List-ID prevents nothing, solves nothing,
assures nothing, and simplifies nothing, and that it will be hard to parse
meaningfully, difficult to enforce correctness syntactically, widely
subject to abuse by spammers, and confusing to most of the community it's
foisted on. However, it has a very pretty RFC, and it gives software
authors something new to implement and fight about, and the listerati a new
stick to beat mere users and working admins with, so I am 100% on board and
in favor of it.
From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 4 07:42:39 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA18781; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pop2b.ripco.com (pop2b.ripco.com [209.100.227.27])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F8717EB0
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ooge (cpe-66-1-8-251.il.sprintbbd.net [66.1.8.251])
by pop2b.ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fB4FMu501036
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:22:56 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <006301c17cd7$746d0840$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
From: "David W. Tamkin"
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
References:
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:17:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
[resending; first one seems to have vanished]
Chuq wrote,
| C'mon, David, you sound like one of those "guarantee me nothing will ever
| happen" whiners, and I KNOW that's not you.
Sorry if I came off that way, Chuq. There are loud flag-wavers here for
getting one's own domain as, even if imperfect, still indisputably superior
in every way to any alternative. My point is not that having one's own
domain leaves some problems incompletely solved and ergo one should throw
out the baby with the bathwater; rather it is that there actually are some
aspects in which -- and some people for whom -- a forwarding service has the
advantage over a personal domain, that it's not always the cut-and-dried
no-brainer decision that certain parties found it to be for them and thus
assume that it is for all humanity. I readily agree, as I'll elaborate in
my response to JC Dill, that someone who has a separate business purpose for
licensing a domain name is already putting up with those problems anyway and
might as well use that domain for a permanent personal email address as
well; but if there is neither a business purpose nor a pressing vanity need
to have one's own domain the scale just might tilt in favor of a forwarding
service or a big publicly accessible provider. It does for me; it does for
quite a few others I know.
You said of having one's own domain,
| It's all about knowing what you're getting into and managing your risks.
The same applies to making the decision in the first place.
From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 4 11:12:17 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA21060; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F041817EB2
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB4IqGb11296
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:52:16 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 10:51:19 -0800
Subject: Another note on the @home debacle...
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Those of you with auto-bounce systems should take note: all of these
now-former @home addresses may not be automatically processed.
Most of the subscribers are subscribed as foo@home.com
The bounces are coming back from the localized SMTP server as
foo@mail..home.com
If your bounce schemes can't interpret all that subdomain stuff to find the
right address, you get to manually track all these things down and do it
yourself. You might want to check your logs....
Chuq
From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 4 12:42:14 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22224; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC0517EB2
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.216.42.51] (A17-216-42-51.apple.com [17.216.42.51])
by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB4KQtb03772;
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:26:55 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:27:04 -0800
Subject: Re: forwarding and domain hosting
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: "David W. Tamkin" ,
"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <006301c17cd7$746d0840$fb080142@cpe6618251.il.sprintbroadband.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12/4/01 7:17 AM, "David W. Tamkin" wrote:
> | C'mon, David, you sound like one of those "guarantee me nothing will ever
> | happen" whiners, and I KNOW that's not you.
>
> Sorry if I came off that way, Chuq.
No apologies necessary. I probably just nread more into it than was really
there.
You make a number of good points, and the real answer is, there IS no one
true single right answer...
From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 4 13:28:41 2001
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22569; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6BA17EB2
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [12.232.198.64] by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <20011204205834.IQVE5859.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@[12.232.198.64]>
for ;
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:58:34 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: meh@pop.sfrn.dnai.com
Message-Id: